PIDUGU MATTAYYA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has been sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur, under Secs.47I and 467, Indian Penal Code, for filing a forged receipt in a suit on a promissory note in which he was defendant.

(2.) Two points are taken in revision. Firstly that if a case is transferred only the Court which originally received the forged document can complain under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code. It is a continuing offence and any Court seized of the case can complain.

(3.) Secondly, that the learned Sessions Judge misdirected himself when he observed that the burden of proof did not lie upon the prosecution to prove that the receipt filed by the Pleader was the receipt given to the Pleader by the accused. The observation is not happily forded because the burden is on the prosecution to make out its case. It might have been said rather, that there is a fair presumption that the document given to a Pleader is the document filed, and the accused should offer some rebuttal. I do not find that the learned Judge failed to regard the case from this aspect, or that the petitioner has been prejudiced. That ends the matter so far as revision is concerned, but there has been discussion of the merits, and I may add that on the merits I agree with the lower Courts.